logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.06.29 2017구합126
상이등급판정처분취소 및 등급상향판정청구취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) entered the Army on October 30, 1963 and was discharged from military service on September 30, 1965.

B. On January 29, 2001, the Deceased applied for registration of a person who rendered distinguished service to the State on the injury sustained during military service, but was determined as non-conformity of the requirements for soldier or policeman wounded on duty.

C. On October 4, 2002, the deceased died. On July 8, 2015, the deceased’s wife filed an application for re-registration with the Defendant of distinguished service to the State on the ground that “The deceased’s wife exceeded the dynamic training course around September 1964 while serving in the military, and the left her part was small, but her part was left alone for a long time, and her operation becomes worse. Although the deceased was classified as the wounded from the internal base team, more aggravated, the deceased was sent to the hospital on December 28, 1964, and the deceased’s “the deceased’s loss of functions by the her part” was applied for re-registration of a person of distinguished service to the State.

On November 24, 2015, the Defendant recognized the deceased’s high-ranking class of duty and alley infection (hereinafter “the instant wound”) on the left-hand side of the deceased, and notified the Plaintiff that it does not constitute the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty, but constitutes the requirements for soldier or policeman on duty. As a result of the documentary examination of a new physical examination of the deceased, the instant wound was determined in the attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter

8. A disability rating 6nd 1th 817 based on a leg and a sloping disability (hereinafter “instant classification table”) was determined as follows, and the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement has also deliberated and resolved equally.

Accordingly, the Defendant determined the instant wounds as falling under class 6, class 1, class 811, class 8, class 6, class 811, and decided on February 4, 2016 as a soldier, police officer, and bereaved family member under the Act on Support for Persons Eligible for Veteran’s Compensation.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disability rating and applied for a reexamination on February 16, 2016, and even in the reexamination, the disability rating of the Deceased was determined the same as that of the previous.

arrow